'Lessons From Tragedies' - update

Report: 07
Date: 14 March 2002
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report details the update on 'Lessons from Tragedies' report in relation to MPS policy on detention, in particular the detention of drunk detainees and cell occupancy

A. Recommendation

Members are asked to note the contents of this report.

B. Supporting information

MPS policy on detention

1. This report details the update on 'Lessons from Tragedies' report in relation to MPS policy on detention, in particular the detention of drunk detainees and cell occupancy

2. The MPS Policy on detention is governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 and the Codes of Practice. Part IV of PACE covers 'Detention - Conditions and Duration' (Sections 34 to 45A) & concerns police powers to detain someone who has been lawfully arrested for an offence in order to charge or to investigate the offence(s) for which the person has been arrested. The overriding requirement is that any period of detention without charge must be no longer than is necessary according to the particular circumstances of the case. The provisions of Part IV are designed to achieve this object by:

• defining the maximum period for which a person can be detained after arrest;
• requiring the grounds for detention to be monitored to ensure it is necessary; and
• requiring the arrested person to be released if the grounds for detention cease to exist.

3. The initial power to authorise detention is vested in the custody officer, whose independent role and responsibilities are carefully defined by the Act and Code. The custody officer has an ongoing independent responsibility to monitor a person's detention, particularly vulnerable persons. At specified intervals, detention must be formally reviewed and special authority is needed to extend detention without charge beyond 24 hours.

4. Code of Practice C provides assistance and guidance to police officers in relation to the detention, treatment and questioning of persons. Failure to conform to the advice provided in this Code may result in evidence obtained being ruled inadmissible. However, the notes for guidance included are not provisions of this code, but are guidance to police officers and others about its application and interpretation (Code C: 1.3).

5. The MPS policy on detention, including vulnerable persons, operates strictly within the Act and the Codes of Practice. Emendations through statute (e.g. Terrorism Act 2000, Criminal Justice & Police Act 2001, Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) are identified and incorporated into policy by the Criminal Justice Office. Successive revisions of the Codes of Practice have also been incorporated in to Policy in the same way. In fact, a member of the Criminal Justice Office, Inspector Roberts, has been significantly involved with the Home Office in drawing up of the latest revisions to the Codes of Practice.

6. The provisions of the Act and Codes of Practice are incorporated into Police Notices, Special Police Notices and other publications as appropriate. Comprehensive information is also held on the MPS intranet site as a readily available source for staff.

7. The MPS is also preparing a Special Notice on the relationship between PACE detention and the Human Rights Act. Particular emphasis is given to the fact that detention without charge under PACE is determined by the necessity to detain persons in order to obtain evidence. This Special Notice will be published later this year.

8. The MPS has drawn up standards of competence for custody officers, which form the basis of custody officer training. The themes covered include professional practice, reception, detention and disposal procedures and operational effectiveness. Within these themes there are elements which have a significant bearing on the detention of vulnerable persons, including managing the arrival of detainees (B1) and ensuring that their welfare needs (C3) and medical needs (C4) are met. Appendix 1

9. The MPS also has a group that meets regularly to examine issues and provide solutions around the 'Medical Care of Prisoners'. Recent subjects include deaths in custody, drunkenness, the impact of night courts, identifying excited delirium and the use of equipment such safety ligature knives and safety restraint belts. A video produced on behalf of this group into preventing deaths in custody has been well received around the country.

10. The subject of PACE detention falls within the remit of criminal justice and therefore falls within the ACPO responsibilities of Assistant Commissioner Ghaffur.

Detention of drunk detainees

11. Persons arrested who are drunk present particular problems for custody officers. The basic tenet that 'drunkenness should be treated as a medical emergency until it is proved otherwise' means that the same special attention afforded to other medical care cases equally applies to persons who are drunk.

12. Code C: 8.10 states that people detained should be visited every hour, and those who are drunk, at least every half-hour. A person who is drunk should be roused and spoken to on each visit. In addition Note 8A states that whenever possible juveniles and other persons at risk should be visited more frequently.

13. The MPS policy relating to the provision of medical care for detained persons goes well beyond that required by PACE and the Codes of Practice. A number of Police Notices and Special Notices have been issued covering a range of medical care issues. These include:

• Medical care of prisoners - persons ill or injured (Special Notice 37/97)
• Detained persons - Procedures to identify when an appropriate adult or medical attention is required and for the continued medical care of prisoners generally (Special Notice 31/98)
• Administration of medication / controlled drugs to detained persons (Notice 38/98)
• Prisoner Escort Record PER Form and revised risk assessment Form 57M (Special Notice 25/00)

14. In particular, Special Notice 37/97 introduced the 4R-observation checklist to officers. The four Rs stand for 'rousability' (can they be woken), 'response to questions' (can they give appropriate responses to specific questions), 'response to commands' (can they respond to command to perform physical movements) and 'remember' (to take into account the possibility or presence of other illnesses, injury or mental condition, particularly where they may be thought to be drunk).

15. Many of the provisions of these Notices are being incorporated into the revised Codes of Practice which will take a more robust position around the general medical care, risk assessment and treatment of detained persons.

16. Recommendation 3 of 'Lessons form Tragedies' states that 'Members of Lambeth Community Police Consultative Group, jointly with the Panel of Lay Visitors for Lambeth establish a separate, more detailed study of alternatives to police custody for persons arrested for being drunk and disorderly.' There is no evidence to suggest that any detailed study has been compiled by the Lambeth CPCG / Lay Visitors Panel to date.

17. The MPS has been engaged in discussions to develop the concept of alternative detoxification facilities based around Westminster since 1998. Initially plans were examined to build a new detoxification centre with inclusive medical facilities. The work hit problems around the high costs of developing such a facility in Central London and the associated running costs. There was also a dilemma between the short term objective of providing an alternative to detention for drunken persons required by the police and the longer term objectives of providing accommodation and care needs for the wider 'rough-sleeping' community as required by the Social Exclusion Unit.

18. A scaling down of this work led to a scheme developed by the Inner London Detoxification Centre in partnership with St Mungo's Community Housing Association and funded by the Home Office. The proposal of this pilot is that police in Camden Borough will make direct referrals of persons detained for drunkenness offences to a St Mungo's shelter in Southampton Row, WC1.

19. The project has identified the complexity of undertaking this type of alternative approach. For instance, there are a number of restrictions around the circumstances of individuals deemed suitable to enter the scheme. In St Mungo's case they will take men who have committed a drunkenness offence and are willing to attend the detoxification unit, are coherent enough to understand the opportunity being offered to them, are not violent and are not in need of immediate medical attention. In addition, as the unit is on the second floor of the premises, they need to be able to physically negotiate two flights of stairs. The unit is available to take a maximum of three drunken persons between 12 noon and 8 p.m. Monday to Friday. Collectively these restrictions severely limit the number of cases likely to be diverted in this way.

20. Another central issue is the need to designate potential sites such as St Mungo's facility as a treatment centre for alcoholics under section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972. This is a legal pre-requisite before police officers can take arrested persons to the centre rather than a police station as normally required by PACE. There have only been a limited number of sites designated in the UK since the Act was introduced. Of the four known sites at Southampton, Watford, Aberdeen and Leeds, all were designated in the period immediately following 1972 and only the Leeds site survives today.

21. The Home Office position is that they will only consider designation once the MPS and St Mungo's have signed up to an agreed operational protocol covering the respective roles and responsibilities. In particular it needs to deal with the procedures and documentation surrounding the hand over of detained persons between police and treatment centre personnel. Minimising the liability of the Commissioner and MPA in the event of any subsequent 'deaths in custody' in St Mungo's is central to this work.

22. The limitations of this project make it difficult to see how any significant impact could be made on the number of drunken persons diverted away from police detention by extending the work across London. In the short term, a more practical alternative could be to offer all drunken persons the opportunity for referral to the facilities offered by St Mungo's once they are sober. The goal of providing an effective alternative to police custody for drunken persons will only realistically be achieved by the provision of a number of expensive bespoke sites across London with sufficient medical facilities to ensure that at least the same level of care afforded to drunken persons in custody suites is maintained.

Custody cell occupancy

23. Paragraphs 8.1 to 8.7 of Code of Practice C provide details of the facilities and conditions to be afforded each prisoner throughout his or her police detention. Code C: 8.1 in particular, states that 'so far as is practicable, not more than one person shall be detained in each cell'. The interpretation of this Code was explored in R v Bailey and Smith (1993) when two remand prisoners were placed together in bugged cell. The issue of double occupancy was discussed and the practicality issue re-inforced. The issue of 'practicality' therefore remains the legal test and forms the basis of MPS policy on cell occupancy.

24. Paragraph 8.8 of Code of Practice C outlines the circumstances that must exist before a juvenile may be detained in a cell during his stay in police detention. Under Code C: 8.8, a juvenile should not be placed in a police cell unless no other secure accommodation is available and the custody officer considers that it is not practicable to supervise them if they are not placed in a cell. A juvenile may not be placed in a cell with a detained adult.

25. In addition to the provisions of Code C: 8, custody officers would know not to place detained persons of different sexes in the same cell. Similar protection would also be afforded to vulnerable persons in detention including those who are drunk. Custody officers also have the option of transferring detained persons to neighbouring custody suites, either within the Borough or outside if necessary as an alternative to double occupancy.

26. Risk assessment is taught to custody officers on their training course and has been developed extensively in Police Notices for longer-serving custody officers. In conducting risk assessment of detained persons, factors such as vulnerability are crucial indicators. The placing of two persons in the same cell would clearly present potential risks that require both assessment and documentation in the custody record.

27. Recommendation 4 of 'Lessons from Tragedies' states that 'under no circumstances should a person arrested for being drunk and disorderly or drunk and incapable be placed in a cell with another detained person. Clearly drunken persons would fall into the category of vulnerable and the risks around double occupancy of cells would be considered in this context.

28. The potential for double occupancy in a cell is largely determined by the number of persons in detention at a particular time and the available cell accommodation. Distribution of available cell space is often an issue of legacy rather than current demand. As a consequence there are boroughs in London who have significantly less cell accommodation available than others. Similarly, rationalisation and brigading of cell accommodation during the realignment of Divisions to Borough Policing Units has also had an impact on the total accommodation available across the MPS area.

29. A number of questions remain at this present time. Is there a disproportionate amount of double occupancy and if there is does it represent poor cell management rather than poor cell availability? Equally, in terms of trying outcomes, has there been an increased risk to detained persons in terms of deaths in cells? Certainly there has been no death in a cell resulting from double occupancy since the death in Hammersmith over ten years ago. Equally, the question remains about whether or not any deaths of drunken persons in cells could have been prevented if other persons had been in the cell to alert police quickly.

30. The question raised by the MPA makes reference to "the rate at which PACE guidelines on custody cell occupancy is regularly disregarded". This issue suggests a deliberate act of omission rather than the necessity or practicability aspect of complying with the Codes of Practice. The question is therefore one not of how often double occupancy occurs per se, but how often does it occur when other cell space was available. The second part of the question relating to the "MPS proposal for addressing this in the long term", infers that the PACE guidelines are 'regularly disregarded'. There is no evidence available at this time to confirm or disprove this assertion.

31. At present, there is no measurement system in place to determine whether double occupancy is occurring on a regular and 'proper' basis. As stated above, the less cell accommodation available the greater the potential for doubling up in cells. Information regarding double occupancy is currently recorded manually in the free text of individual custody records. There is no means of collating such data centrally and any measurement system would therefore have to rely on custody officers reporting double occupancy as and when it occurred. As such it would be difficult data to retrieve without a great deal of effort, particularly in relation to data on the availability of other cells in order to test the 'practicability' of the decision.

32. In terms of the future position, the NSPIS Custody Package is a much more integrated system, capable of providing a broad range of electronic custody data. In particular it will hold data on cell occupation and times in and out of cells. As such it would be technically capable of determining cell occupancy. The package is very close to being 'fit for purpose' nationally when the pilots conclude in May 2002. However, there are a number of technical difficulties around differing bandwidths that will cause difficulties in placing the package on the proposed future IT platform for the MPS.

33. Efforts will also begin shortly to explore the potential of brigaded custody suites at 'Bridewell' sites. This is a longer-term project that will explore the potential of fewer but larger custody facilities, with the emphasis on more effective and efficient procedures and integral care provisions. This type of facility would enable improved cell management generally and specific closer monitoring of the double occupancy issue.

C. Financial implications

The contents of this report present no additional financial implications for the MPS at this time.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

Report author: Detective Superintendent Steve Dennis, Criminal Justice, MPS.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

Appendix 1 is available as a hard copy only from MPA Secretariat.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback